Nope.
Street bike engines seldom see anything out of vertical. The force vector of cornering intersects the contact patch which is under the center of the frame more or less. If it doesn’t then the bike is no longer being driven on the tires which is not a normal mode of operation.

Hopefully this will be a good car to drive, but being a Toyota (or Scion!) the odds are not favorable. A low CoG is great but just having that doesn`t make a great car. No more than having 50:50 weight distribution automatically makes a great car.

I’m assuming you’ve never heard of the Toyota MR2, Supra, Celica, Lexus LFA, etc…..all good handling cars. Just because Corollas and Camrys don’t handle like sports cars (which they aren’t supposed to anyway), doesn’t mean that Toyota can’t build great cars. This thing is built to handle well, and it will (early reports are already confirming this).

I have heard of them. First most of those listed are years if not decades out of development and production. As for the Lexus LF-A I would hope a decent car could be built that retails for over $300K.
Lets look at the current line-up (which serves pretty much as a proxy for th eline-up for the past 5 years at least)- Corolla – even in XRS spec!, Matrix, Camry, Yaris and Avalon. None of them are known as driving cars (they have other positive attributes for sure). You say you don`t expect good handling but Honda, Mazda and Ford have managed it with their bread and butter cars compared to Toyota. Vanilla doesn`t have to be boring from a dynamics perspective.
As for the cars you mention – the MR2 stopped sales in 2005, the Supra stopped sales in 1998(!), the Celica stopped sales in 2005 (with only 3113 sold). It isn`t like other companies have withdrawn from affordable performance models – MadzaSpeed, Civic Si, VW GTi/GLi, even the Buick Regal GS.

I find it interesting that car enthusiasts like to pretend like the Camry’s handling makes it a bad car. It handles that way entirely on purpose-the handling isn’t tack sharp but that’s just it, it’s not *supposed* to be tack sharp and what matters in a comfortable family sedan is that the handling is consistent and predictable. In a Camry you *know* how it’s going to behave and it’s easy to keep control because the limits are telegraphed to you clearly-no faked “sporty” handling only to be surprised by when you’ve broken the limits. I much prefer that to cars where you get a faked sense of sportiness but no real control over the vehicle and unpredictably tuned handling. Just as an example I’ve been driving a Malibu for a month now and even with traction control the torque steer is poorly managed compared to even an older Camry without traction control, the suspension is firmer but you have no feel of where the limits are and the steering basically up and fails you at the limit. In the Camry the limits may be just as low but pushing it at the limit isn’t a matter of guesswork-it’s all very clear.

That’s what Toyota’s going for here as well-a car that’ll let you push it’s limits without acting like a rear engine RWD Porsche when you’ve exceeded them. Just because they’ve pushed to make it easy to push the limits doesn’t mean that it has the same limits as a Camry.

I agree with tekdemon. The Camry is a good handling car in that it handles the way a typical Camry driver wants. And of course Toyota is capable to satisfy drivers with a different handling preference.

It doesn’t matter that the cars I mentioned (except LFA) are out of production. The point I was trying to make is that Toyota can make very good cars if they want to. The Corollas, Camrys, etc, Toyota makes now are meant to be “vanilla”. Blame the people buying them, not Toyota. Everybody is complaining about Toyota being to boring (me included), but now that they actually are going to make an exiting car, people start dissing it.

MR – I understand your point, but my later point about Ford, Mazda and Honda still is true. They have managed to build mainstream cars in the Corolla and Camry classes that are more fun to drive whilst being as fuel economic, reliable, stylish, spacious etc. It shows that having some dynamic ability (and style) is not mutually exclusive from being a competent mainstream car.

Wounded pride at Subaru. According to them, Toyota styled this car, and Subaru did all the body and chassis engineering, although I expect Toyota performed the D4-S port plus direct fuel injection installation.

They also have a recent history of the US Spec Legacy and Outback’s suspension issues. I know there’s always gonna be ego clashes between Subaru and Toyota on joint projects but I think we should take the car for what it is, an amalgamation of both. Hopefully the egos of the engineers from both companies made them want to make their parts the standouts so we get a better car.

I’m really curious how well this will actually sell. Based on the leaked numbers (and toyota’s detailed comparisons) this seems to be like a 2 door version of the rx-8.

Now before you get all excited let me point a few things out. The ft-86/fr-s/brz has less weight but also less hp and torque then the rx-8. But importantly has very similar power to weight numbers as the rx-8. The ft-86 has slightly better torque:lbs than the rx-8 but slightly lower hp:lbs than the rx-8.

I’m curious how this car will be received. But also i’m curious to see if this car will incur the same criticism as the rx-8 in regards to it’s relatively modest hp and torque numbers. Especially considering it’s acceleration should be comparable to the rx-8

There’s on other thing that worries me: http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Toyota-FT-86-coupe-2012-CAR-review-/

Their “as tested” model was about £25,000…that’s about $40k. Yes, I realize that cars sell at vastly different price points in different markets but I find it difficult to believe they could sell it for their initial claim of just over $20k for the US market, if car magizine’s estimate for the UK market is to be believed. Although I should point out they did think that the car had 170ft-lbs of torque so their analysis should be taken with a huge block of salt.

The Rx-8 is held back by crazy fuel burn, short range and the sheer exoticness of it’s engine. None of which will afflict the FT-86. A tiny, aerodynamic car weighing 2700lbs, powered by a modern DI4 tuned conservatively (at least compared to the S2000), with a suitable overdrive, should give great mileage.

This is pure speculation, but my guess is the FT will develop a reputation for Toyota like reliability and low maintenance cost, which is important in this price range. It would also strike me as silly of Toyota to let its reliability reputation suffer another blow, by producing a low volume car that drags down this reputation.

I’ve been telling my brother to hold off getting a car for his son until this thing comes out, but the more I learn about it, the more I want one for myself. Except I’m old enough that hanging around Scion dealerships may come off as a bit creepy….

This is one case where I would tell people to go read the Car and Driver article. (Check the library if you aren’t going to the dentists office any time soon.) Subaru is claiming they did most of the work and that the base model with 6 speed manual will be right around 28mpg, compared to the RX-8 that’s total WIN for me. The biggest advantage for the RX-8 would be the backseat and clamshell doors.

True, rx-8 fuel economy is pretty atrocious but then again the mx-5 is smaller, lighter, and less powerful than the ft-86 and rx-8 and still only gets 28mpg hwy (epa rating). And Subaru’s boxer engines aren’t really heralded for their fuel efficiency either.

The rotary engine is very exotic but then the boxer engine isn’t common either. which makes it harder/more expensive to work on/get fixed.

If we’re just talking about the US market it’ll be slapped with the scion badge. I think given it’s a sports car it will need more regular maintenance then an ecobox. I think if people go buy one expecting the same reliability inspite of neglect as an ecobox they’re setting themselves up for disaster.

I’m torn. On the one hand I really want this to be successful because it’s a very fascinating car with lots of potential. But that would mean people are easily duped by internet rumor/myth. (No it doesn’t necessarily mean people appreciate it for the handling or else cars like the rx-8 and s2k would have been very popular)

On the other hand, it could flop in terms of sales in which case means people are vain and can only understand armchair numbers and don’t actually understand the meaning of performance.

Dan beat me to the punch but, it brings up another question. Would the rx-8 sold better if it got a few more miles per gallon?

I could have excused the slightly higher oil consumption and the fact that you can’t just start the RX8 up and back it out of your garage and turn it off (not without causing the computer to go in to “no start” mode because it’s protecting the engine) if the real world fuel economy was a little higher. For men who aren’t independently wealthy and still want a fun car on the side, decent fuel economy can be a deal/no deal situation. I mean heck, it would be easier to justify a Corvette which can get 30mpg highway with the 6 speed manual.

“I mean heck, it would be easier to justify a Corvette which can get 30mpg highway with the 6 speed manual.”

See that’s the problem. Yes the corvette gets better mileage and has more horse power. But corvettes (even used ones) are much more expensive then a rx-8. Besides if you’re looking at cars like the rx-8 or ft-86 you’re looking at cars with good handling which is something that can’t be easily quantified.

I realize you just threw the corvette out as a off the cuff example but it makes my point very nicely. For example:

If you were to look closely at fuel cost and assume the corvette did it’s 30mpg and the rx-8 did 20mpg (both hwy and obviously few people do nearly 100% hwy travel but hey.)

Assuming 10k miles traveled per year at at a cost of $4/gal (premium gas) The difference is about $570 per year saved on gas. A 5-10 year old corvette can still go for about $30k. A 5 year old rx-8 can be found for $17k. at $13k that would take 20+ years to make up the difference in gas. Even if you were to get a 10+ year old corvette at like $20k you’d still take 5+ years to recoup initial costs.

Drive less and the savings will be less, obviously, and take longer to make up the difference.

Not to mention cost of insurance. My insurance company considers the rx-8 a 4 door sedan. A technicality I know, but it’s a very nice technicality.

I realize that people are pinching pennies but if a person is on a really tight budget then don’t buy a sports car. But that aside, people put WAY too much weight on simple numbers as gospel and don’t bother doing research or gain first hand experience to actually get a feel for the car.

Not to mention cost of insurance. My insurance company considers the rx-8 a 4 door sedan. A technicality I know, but it’s a very nice technicality.

Woah, hold up, wait right there… that my friend might be the holy grail. I’m going to be buying a car post July 2012 and that would be the question to ask my independent insurance agent who carrys about a dozen different companies he can get quotes from. You just made my day and gave me another layer to compare. Stupid me thought that an RX8, Subaru BRZ, Mustang, and Camaro would all be coupes for insurance purposes. (Although I know that there are a million reasons for variations in premiums between cars with similar designations in body.)

Yeah. it took some digging but when I looked at places like state farm, allstate etc. they’ll label it sports coupe and quoted me a arm a leg and my left kidney, but when I looked at places like travelers, it was like half the price for comparable coverage and when I looked at why, that’s the only difference I could see.

Although I suppose if did that when insuring any car (and you probably should anyways) there are good deals out there.

I should point out that i’m a 24yr old guy, so all insurance companies will be expensive and it’s possible that travelers simple wasn’t penalizing as much as the others but that was the only noticeable difference.

edit:Out of morbid curiosity I looked at some companies and travelers quoted (with vague info but comparable my real info and car) and allstate is nearly 4x as expensive for comparable plans. (actually travels’ default plan had a lot more coverage but still 1/4 the cost)

Regarding the price, most cars cost in the US in dollars roughly what they cost in the UK in pounds. $25,000 or less in the US for a car that sells for £25,000 in the UK is consistent with other cars.

This can’t be compared to the RX-8 for several reasons.

1) It actually weighs 300 pounds less than an RX-8.

2) It will be sold by Toyota and Subaru dealers instead of just Mazda dealers. That gives it a much larger market.

3) Without getting into a rotary debate the rotary was an incredibly stupid engine for a car that Mazda designed as a relatively entry level daily driver. A rotary would be perfect for something like an Elise or Atom, but people don’t want failure prone gas guzzling engines in four seat sub-$30,000 cars designed to be daily drivers.

Toyota and Subaru have designed a car that can be used as a commuter car 5 (or these days 6) days a week, but taken to the track day or solo event on Sunday.

Between the low weight, excellent aerodynamics and advanced DI engine this thing will get great fuel economy. It will make a case for the future of mass market rear wheel drive cars.

If Scion, which will be selling this in the US, is smart it will offer a set of snow tires as an accessory that can be financed with the car, with free tire swaps at the dealer every fall and spring. But demographically the future of the US is in areas with good weather, so that’s not too large of an issue anyway.

-Both C&D article dan linked and the Car Magazine I linked (even if they’re slightly off the mark) means the ft-86 will probably be priced at mid to high 20’s. For reference a base model rx-8, brand new, costs $26k. Top of the line model with every option available is $33k.

I should point out in reality mazda had their most success when they sold rotary engine cars in the slightly above ecobox price range. The very expensive rx-7 FD, while very beautiful, didn’t sell. The much cheaper SA/FB and FC sold really well. Even the rx-8 when it first came out sold pretty well.

-The numbers i’m going on say the ft-86 is 2667lbs (base model)

these come from a leaked training manual: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2096

My point was, yes it’s lighter but also has less power and importantly the power to weight ratio is comparable.

-The ft-86 will have more advertising…so it can’t be compared to an rx-8? that’s a new argument i’ve never heard before.

-Historically the subaru boxer engine hasn’t a gas sipper. It won’t be as much of a drunkard as the rotary engine but it’s not going to get 30 mpg. Optimistically, my guess will be 26-28mpg.

I go through about 2qts of oil + 4qts of oil when I change my oil. 6qts of oil every 3000k is excessive?

In fact I have a challenge for you. measure your oil. And see how much you burn between oil changes. I bet you’ll be in for a surprise. Every engine burns oil, only the electric motor is exempt. The difference is mine does it intentionally and yours does it incidentally.

I don’t want people to miss understand me. I think the ft-86 has the potential to be awesome. But as already demonstrated, the internet myth/rumor can be a powerful force, especially for the ill informed/inexperienced (inexperienced meaning inexperienced with the car in question not necessarily inexperience wading through miss information on the internet).

“In fact I have a challenge for you. measure your oil. And see how much you burn between oil changes. I bet you’ll be in for a surprise. Every engine burns oil, only the electric motor is exempt. The difference is mine does it intentionally and yours does it incidentally.”

I drive an 8 year old Camry and I measure my oil all the time and I’ve *never* burnt more than half a quart even given the extended oil change intervals I use (8-10K). The last time I had to add oil to a motor was 8 years ago in my previous car. I do only use either Mobil 1 or Made in Germany Castrol Syntec though so it’s not as easy to burn off but nonetheless it’s certainly possible that the FT-86 won’t require topoffs of oil.

And his post was about the rotary being a pig on gasoline not oil anyways. I wouldn’t mind having to top off in a sports car anyway since you’re not as likely to put the kind of miles on it you’d have on a commuter so as long as it’s vaguely reasonable it’s not a huge deal. The horrible MPG that the rx-8 gets is pretty depressing though since you don’t get the kind of power that would justify it. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of a rotary engine but from a practical perspective if you can get the same power with 30% less gasoline…

I’m not saying the ft-86 will require top offs, it probably and hopefully wont. I was simply pointing out that burning oil isn’t unique to rotary engines and that requiring that the oil be topped of is massively over hyped and even when accounting for oil being topped off I still purchase less oil than some other cars.

It’s not the huge issue that everyone makes it out to be.

As for gas, yeah the rotary is a pig but then again, as I was pointing out boxer engines don’t have the best track record with fuel economy. The subaru STI(a 2.5l Boxer engine, 305hp) for example gets only 23mpg hwy. The less powerful WRX (265hp) gets 25mpg hwy. The renesis engine (232hp) gets 21mpg hwy. A 4mpg difference is pretty small. Especially considering your mood/driving habits will have a much greater than 4mpg impact on fuel economy.

Now what will the ft-86 boxer engine get? if it wants to do well it has to hit 28+mpg. The fuel economy of the renesis engine was lamented when it first came out and that was about 8 years ago.

But then again if REALLY wants to survive then it has to brace itself for the future. If you look at the future it’ll probably still be competing against the mx-5 which already gets 28mpg. But more likely in 2-3 years will have to compete with the ND version of the mx-5.

2-300 pounds lighter than a Cayman, and an inch lower COG……. Nice! And from a company that has quite a lot to lose by selling a car that falls apart every other week if driven daily, to boot. Hope that manual Aisin is Miata grade. And that the interior is S2000 / FJ Cruiser simple and direct, without menu driven auto this and that afflicts even Porsches.

$28,000+ (For the Subie, if the C&D article linked above is correct) is a bit higher than what Scion’s target market was hoping for. Add insurance for the male <25 set, and the monthlies may not be student loan/part time employed friendly.

I don’t quite buy into the fact that Toyota was going for a low center of gravity. It’s most likely just the argumentation Subaru people used against the Toyota people when discussing what engine they were going to use. I also find it hard to imagine that the 4-wheel drive version of this will not make a really good WRC car ;)

The image says that “The weight distribution can be controlled by the driver but the center of gravity can’t.”

I am not sure I get their point.

The weight distribution can realistically be altered only by adding weight to the car, typically only in the passenger compartment or the trunk. But, except for pick ups in the winter, who adds weight to do this? Perhaps some move the battery to the trunk to change the weight distribution.

By the same argument I could add weight to the roof or lead bricks to the undercarriage and change the center of gravity. Filling the tank more or less will change the COG as well but very little.

In other words, neither the weight distribution nor the COG are readily driver controlled.

I think they’re being wiseguys about how the weight of the driver could affect weight distibution. If the driver is so fat that weight distibution is being affected then the driver could try to lose some weight.

It’s been very clear that this car is intended to be tuned, and tuned hard (they even left spaces on the sides of the dash to allow roll cage installation). I’m confident they’re referring to altering the weight distribution by using carbon fiber hoods or rear gates, lexan windows, aftermarket radiator and fans, alloy bumper beams etc…

The comment in question was aimed to go over the head of anyone who doesn’t know the term “steer with the throttle.” I dunno, I thought that kind of “inside joke” wink-nudge was rather clever. Whether or not the product actually lives up to its hype, they’re being quite clear about its intended purpose and market.

On another note, I’m surprised that for all the mentions of Subarus’ mediocre fuel economy, nobody’s acknowledged that all Subarus since 1993 (or so) have been AWD, and rather boxy. Remove nearly half of drivetrain losses, clean up the aerodynamics, and 30+mpg is more than reasonable.

On the other hand, 53:47 is nothing to brag about, especially if you read the fine print “with two occupants”.

Glad to see the FT/BRZ introduction coming within sight. I think it’s extremely important to note that this will be the first affordable sports car with such careful attention paid to mass centralization and low centre of gravity. (The RX-8 be argued as their precursor, albeit a flawed gem.) Motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs have gone through similar engineering transformations, with revolutionary changes to handling dynamics being the result.
The 458 Italia and Cayman are consistently ranked as two of the best handling cars in the world because of similar dynamic foundations. Given it’s engine placement and low CG, the FT/BRZ will have a low polar moment of inertia like the previous two, but have the advantage of front engine placement. I remember reading in an interview that the goal was to create a car that would rotate around the hip point of the driver.
Even given it’s foundation, the car’s execution could fall way short of the mark, so it’s success can not be not be predetermined. That said, I have a feeling we could be staring at a seminal piece of auto engineering.
Although a tango between two unlikely dance partners, Toyota is able to leverage the only existing engines that could make such a car possible, while Subaru loses the AWD marketing angle but can play up it’s flat engine heritage, and gains a car it would never make all on it’s own. Smart. I also read the idea of a sedan was being seriously considered. Sounds like the kind of car that could change a company’s image in short order. Curiously, flipping the powertrain behind the driver could create a new version of the MR-2.

It was, but the Miata has an upright four banger and carries it’s weight differently, more like an S2000. A short, squat boxer engine allows engine placement far different than these two. The packaging of the RX-8’s rotary so close to the firewall and low in the chassis is likely going to be a much closer comparison. That car with the R3 option is also consistently considered to be one of the best handling cars at any price.
All brand nonsense aside, this is simply a matter of where, and how much weight this car carries. Take another look at the front view of the engine. The black, top third of the engine is a plastic intake runner. The heavy parts are the lower two thirds in metal. It is mounted extremely low.
Also consider that this car is much smaller and lower to the ground that it appears in pictures. If you’ve seen shots of a GT-R and LFA parked side by side, you’ll understand what I mean. The Nissan is a significantly taller car.
The FT/BRZ is a small, squat car with wheels pushed to the corners. It should be the biz…